That does seem to be the case. I found this on the History Guy website:
The roots of this conflict are quite simple to trace: the inconclusive and vague cease-fire agreement ending the Gulf War of 1990-1991. This agreement called on the Iraqi government to allow United Nations weapons inspectors to search for prohibited weapons in Iraq, and, perhaps more importantly, allowed the Coalition Allies (originally the U.S., the U.K. and France), to enforce what came to be called "No-Fly Zones" over northern and southern Iraq. The original intent of these zones was to protect the rebellious Iraqi minorities (Kurds and Shiite Muslims) in northern and southern Iraq, respectively. The Coalition was permitted to fly warplanes over these zones to prevent Saddam Hussein's government from using military aircraft to attack these minorities. As time progressed though, the No-Fly Zones became a means for the Allies to force Iraq to comply with UN and Coalition demands, often related to the status of the weapons inspectors.
Don't mention it too loudly, though, or you'll be pounced upon by the faux-conservatives who are too new to this to recall back when conservatism meant playing a fair and honest game, not needing to resort to lies and coverups. :-(
We used to have the conviction and confidence to know we were right and didn't need to lie or mislead or distort. I've been asking lately, "when did 'ends justify the means' become a so-called conservative principle!?" :-(